Dallas Safari Club Response

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16
Page 1 of 34 PageID 166
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
______________________________________________________________________________
)
CONSERVATION FORCE et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 3:15-CV-3348
)
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ii
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ARGUMENT
I.
PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE CLAIMS THAT DELTAS

EMBARGO VIOLATES COMMON-LAW AND STATUTORY
DUTIES OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND DELTAS MOTION TO
DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED
A.
The Complaints well-pleaded allegations withstand the Motion and

give Delta more than sufficient notice of Plaintiffs claims for relief
The Complaint properly pleads a common-law claim that Deltas

embargo on Big Five trophies violates a common carriers duty of
equal treatment
The Complaint properly pleads that Deltas embargo on Big Five

trophies violates the statute codifying the common carriers duty
of equal treatment
11
PLAINTIFFS TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM IS NOT

PREEMPTED AND PROPERLY PLEADS A CLAIM FOR WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED BASED ON DELTAS DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS
16
THE COMPLAINT PLEADS A PROPER CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR

DELTAS FAILURE TO OPERATE WITH A VALID CERTIFICATE
22
B.
C.
II.
III.
CONCLUSION
24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Adkins v. Slater,
298 S.E.2d 236 (W.Va. 1982)
Akron, Canton, & Youngstown R.R. Co. v. ICC,

611 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1979)
Amazon Tours, Inc. v. Quest Global Angling Adventures, LLC,

No. 3:03-CV-2551, 2004 WL 1788078 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2004) (Lynn, J.)
Am. Trucking Assns, Inc. v. Atchison,
387 U.S. 397 (1967)
20
8, 10
Archibald v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.,

460 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1972)
13
Arif Naqvi v. Turkish Airlines, Inc.,

80 F. Supp. 3d 234 (D.D.C. 2015)
14
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009)
Baptist Hosp. of Se. Tex., Inc. v. Baber,
672 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Ct. App. 1984)
Bayne v. Adventure Tours USA, Inc.,
841 F. Supp. 206 (N.D. Tex. 1994)
22
16, 18
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007)
B.J. Alan Co. v. ICC,

897 F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Brown v. United Airlines, Inc.,

656 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D. Mass. 2009)
17
Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ.,

607 So. 2d 517 (La. 1992)
22
Bynum v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

166 F. Appx 730 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
13, 16
Casas v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

304 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2002)
16
Chlorine Inst., Inc. v. SOO Line R.R.,

792 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2015)
Contl Airlines, Inc. v. Kiefer,

920 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. 1996))
17
Davis v. Bayless,
70 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 1995)
DeGirolamo v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A.,

159 F. Supp. 2d 764 (D.N.J. 2001)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. C.A.B.,
543 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
13
Desardouin v. UPS, Inc.,

285 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Conn. 2003)
18
Diefenthal v. C.A.B.,
681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982)
12
Electrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp.,

614 F. Appx 731 (5th Cir. 2015)
Elnajjar v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.,

No. 4:04-CV-680, 2005 WL 1949545 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2005)
15
Fitzgerald v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.,

229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956)
13
Gemstar Group USA, Inc. v. Ferragamo USA, Inc.,

No. 08-CV-1822, 2008 WL 4858363 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2008)
10
Gibbs v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

191 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002)
14, 15
Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hamilton,

57 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. Ct. App. 1933)
Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Glidden Co.,

284 U.S. 151 (1931)
ii
22
Hodges v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

44 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)
16, 17, 22
ICC v. Del., Lackawanna, & W. R.R. Co.,

220 U.S. 235 (1911)
Ileto v. Glock, Inc.,

565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009)
22
Jimenez v. Wood Cnty.,

660 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (Smith, J., dissenting)
14
Kan. State Bank & Trust Co. v. Emery Air Freight Corp.,
656 F. Supp. 200 (D. Kan. 1987)
Karp v. N. Cent. Air Lines, Inc.,

583 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1978)
13
Lebohm v. City of Galveston,

275 S.W.2d 951 (1955)
22
Lewis v. Contl Airlines, Inc.,

40 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D. Tex. 1999)
16, 17
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

504 U.S. 555 (1992)
Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

283 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2002)
16, 20
Mahaney v. Air France,

474 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
13
Mich. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co.,

83 U.S. 318 (1872)
MJR Corp. v. B & B Vending Co.,
760 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. App. 1988)
23
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co.,

211 U.S. 612 (1909)
8, 10
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

504 U.S. 374 (1992)
16
iii
Mortimer v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

302 F. Supp. 276 (N.D. Ill. 1969)
13
Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc. v. Dworkin,

919 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1990)
23
N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. White,

243 U.S. 188 (1917)
22
Ocean S.S. Co. of Savannah v. Savannah Locomotive Works & Supply Co.,
63 S.E. 577 (Ga. 1909)
Peninsula Airport Commn v. Natl Airlines, Inc.,
436 F. Supp. 850 (E.D. Va. 1977)
Pittman v. Grayson,
No. 93-CV-3974, 1997 WL 370331 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1997)
7, 9
23
Polansky v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

523 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1975)
12
PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins,

447 U.S. 74 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring)
22
Riffin v. STB,
733 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
Roman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

441 F. Supp. 1160 (N.D. Ill. 1977)
13
Semon v. Royal Indem. Co.,

279 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1960)
Shinault v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

936 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1991)
12, 13
Sierra Club v. BNSF Ry. Co.,

No. 1:13-CV-272, 2014 WL 53309 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 2, 2014)
Smith v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc. & Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

567 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1978)
12
Spinner v. Verbridge,
125 F. Supp. 2d 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)
23
iv
Stimpson v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist.,

743 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987)
23
St. Louis & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Oklahoma,

184 P. 442 (Okla. 1919)
Transcontl Bus. Sys., Inc. v. C.A.B.,

383 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1967)
12
Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

73 F.3d 1423 (7th Cir. 1996)
17, 18
Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. UPS, Inc.,

474 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2007)
United States v. Stephen Bros. Line,

384 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1967)
U.S. Energy Research & Dev. Admin. v. Akron, Canton, & Youngstown R.R. Co.,
359 I.C.C. 639 (1978), affd, 611 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1979)
Wainwrights Vacations, LLC v. Pan Am. Airways Corp.,

130 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D. Md. 2001)
18
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges,

52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2011)
20
Williams v. Midwest Express Airlines, Inc.,

315 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Wis. 2004)
15
Wills v Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

200 F. Supp. 360 (S.D. Cal. 1961)
15
Woolsey v. NTSB,
993 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1993)
York Co. v. Cent. R.R.,

70 U.S. (3 Wall) 107 (1865)
11
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
1, 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)
Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) & (b)
9, 10
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
U.S. Const. amend. V
22
49 U.S.C.A. 40101 (Westlaw through 2015)
6, 24
11-15
23
23
SECONDARY SOURCES
41 A.L.R. Fed. 532 (Westlaw through 2015)
11, 13, 15
8A Am. Jur. 2d Aviation 59
13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers 227
10
5A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Carriers 146
10
2A C.J.S. Aeronautics & Aerospace 226
13
12 C.J.S. Carriers 6
FAA, Advisory Circular 120-12A
vi
Plaintiffs Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Houston Safari Club, Corey Knowlton,
the CAMPFIRE Association (Zimbabwe), and the Tanzania Hunting Operators Association
(together, Plaintiffs) respectfully submit the following Response in opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (the Motion) filed by Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.
(Delta), and Deltas Brief in Support of its Motion (Brief) (ECF No. 11).
INTRODUCTION
Delta displays the same cavalier attitude in the Brief it did in banning transport of Big
Five hunting trophies. On the same page, the Brief brands the Complaint (ECF No. 1) a press
release,1 criticizes Plaintiffs explanation of the deleterious effects of Deltas embargo (on both
Plaintiffs interests and the broader conservation system of African range nations), and seems to
question Plaintiffs standing. But the detail Plaintiffs put into explaining the substantial harms
they are suffering from this embargo is specifically intended to establish standing. Plaintiffs
include the millions of people who depend on revenue generated by conservation hunting as well
as the safari operators who protect wildlife habitat and fund anti-poaching, and the tourist hunterconservationists who foot the bills. See, e.g., Compl. 1-10, 52-60. Deltas capitulation to
keyboard activism and its unlawful embargo on Big Five hunting trophies has broader, damaging
consequences for people, wildlife, and the conservation systems of range nations than perhaps
Delta recognizes or wants to admit. But it is Plaintiffs obligation under Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to give Delta and the Court notice of what is at stake.2
Deltas repeated labelling of the Complaint as a press release should be stricken. This term insults the millions
of impoverished people living on marginal land who benefit from tourist hunting revenue, and flies in the face of
information about Zimbabwes CAMPFIRE program, as well as the benefits of safari hunting in Africa, which was
provided to Delta when Plaintiffs first served a demand letter on Delta before this suit. The demand letter and
attachments, explaining the deleterious effects of Deltas embargo, are annexed as Exhibit 1.
While Delta may jeer at Plaintiffs Complaint, its embargo has been recognized as a serious threat to conservation
and development in Africa by more than just Plaintiffs. On December 3, 2015, the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, which represents the collective voice of North Americas state, provincial, and territorial fish and
Deltas unlawful embargo harms the tourist hunter-conservationists Plaintiffs represent.

They cannot ship lawfully acquired Big Five trophies in the manner allowed by international
law. Delta is treating them like traffickers and poachers, and that stigma is reducing their interest
and ability to hunt in Africa. Worse, the wildlife authorities of range nations are losing essential
revenue otherwise used for anti-poaching and wildlife management. And worst, CAMPFIRE and
other rural communities are losing the benefits of hunting revenue, and suffering the
consequences of reduced income and services and increased wildlife conflict all because the
embargo tarnishes the reputation of the user-pay, sustainable use-based conservation system in
place. The Complaint details these damages and thereby establishes Plaintiffs standing.3
While Delta may scorn Plaintiffs allegations and spend pages of its Brief trying to
distract from this issues, at bottom, this is a simple case. Delta is a common carrier. As such, it
is subject to a common-law duty and a statutory requirement of non-discrimination. Yet it is
unlawfully discriminating against a certain cargo from a certain shipper and a certain place,
while carrying similar cargo from similar shippers and places. Plaintiffs are and represent those
discriminated against and affected by the discrimination. They are the proper parties to litigate
this claim, obtain an injunction against Deltas unlawful actions, and recover for the losses
caused by Deltas tortious behavior. The Complaint lays out a simple and effective case. Delta
cannot escape its liability by arguing around the issues.
First, the law of common carriers is ancient and clear on this point: when a common
carrier holds itself out to carry no matter what for pretty much anyone, anywhere, it has a duty
wildlife agencies, sent Delta a letter asking it to rescind the embargo and identifying the same harms as Plaintiffs
do. This letter (annexed as Exhibit 2) confirms that the Complaint is more than a publicity stunt.
3
Delta alludes to Plaintiffs standing but does not challenge jurisdiction for good reason. The Complaint
adequately alleges that Deltas embargo causes financial and reputational harm to Plaintiffs and their members. The
harm is fairly traceable to and redressable by an injunction against Deltas embargo. Thus, the elements of standing
are fulfilled and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
to treat potential shippers and shipments alike.4 Deltas embargo discriminates against specific
cargo and shippers from a specific place. It violates Deltas duty of equal treatment. Plaintiffs
may properly bring a claim under the common law to stop this unlawful conduct.
Further, the Fifth Circuit and other courts have repeatedly recognized a private right of
action against air carriers for violating the aviation laws former anti-discrimination provision,
404(b). In 1994 when the federal aviation law was revise[d], codif[ied], and enact[ed] without
substantive change (Pub. L. 103-272), the former 404(b) was included as current 41310(a).
There is no reason to believe the Fifth Circuit would change its position because the prior law
was renumbered. Thus, this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent to consider Plaintiffs
claim against Delta for unreasonable discrimination against persons, places, and types of traffic.
Second, Plaintiffs tortious interference claim, which seeks to recover damages from the
defamatory effects of Deltas Big Five embargo, is not preempted by federal law. Where, as
here, a state-law claim bears only a remote relationship to an air carriers services, it is not
preempted. Plaintiffs allege that Deltas discrimination is broader than just its cargo-carrying
services. In announcing its refusal to transport Big Five trophies, Delta publicly lumped the
Plaintiffs who hunt and seek to transport lion, leopard, elephant, Cape buffalo, and rhino with
poachers and traffickers. Delta has become the corporate poster child of anti-hunters and animal
rights activists. Deltas tortious statements damage Plaintiffs business relations. These
statements have nothing to do with the transport of Big Five trophies. Defamatory conduct
unrelated to air carrier services is not preempted, and Plaintiffs claim stand.
Third, Plaintiffs have properly pleaded that Delta is operating without a valid air carrier
certificate. Deltas embargo contravenes common law, federal statute, and international
See Delta Air Cargos website, https://www.deltacargo.com/ProductsRates/General/Dimension.aspx.
convention. Delta knows this, but continues to enforce it. Thus, Delta knows it has violated the
terms of its certificate and is operating improperly. Plaintiffs do not need to enforce the terms of
Deltas certificate Deltas unlawful conduct speaks for itself.
Because Plaintiffs have properly alleged their claims, Deltas Motion must fail.
BACKGROUND
Tourist safari hunting is a tried-and-true conservation strategy in Southern and parts of
Eastern Africa. Compl. 1. It is responsible for protecting most wildlife habitat, providing most
anti-poaching, and incentivizing tolerance and protection of wildlife by generating revenue used
in remote communities for infrastructure and quality-of-life improvements. Id. 2- 5.
Despite these benefits, some people oppose tourist hunting and prioritize the lives of
individual animals over the good of the species and conservation on the whole. See id. 34. In
April 2015, an animal rights group petitioned Delta to stop transporting exotic hunting
trophies. Delta did not stop, and issued a statement confirming it accept[ed] hunting trophies in
accordance with all U.S. domestic and international regulations. Id. However, in July 2015, a
lion that apparently had a name (Cecil) was hunted in Zimbabwe, and the Parks and Wildlife
Management Authority investigated the American tourist hunter, landowner, and professional
hunter involved. Id. 38-39. The tourist hunter was cleared of any wrongdoing, but the hunt
drew unprecedented media attention and emotional social media response. Id. 39-40. Amidst
the media storm, on August 3, 2015, Delta announced a ban on transport as freight of lion,
leopard, elephant, rhinoceros and buffalo (the Big Five) trophies. Id. 41. Ministers in
South Africa and Namibia immediately spoke out against the ban. Id. 43. As the Complaint
alleges, this embargo vilifies the actions of specific tourist hunters by refusing to transport their
trophies and instead treating these lawfully acquired trophies like contraband. Id. 6, 53, 56.
The stigma associated with and increased delay and expense caused by Deltas embargo
threatens Africas conservation hunting system by deterring big game hunters. E.g., id. 6, 7,
10, 53, 57. Accordingly, Plaintiffs a conservation NGO, two membership safari clubs, an
individual hunter whose rhino trophy Delta specifically refused to carry, the national association
representing Zimbabwes communal wildlife management areas, and the safari operators
association of Tanzania filed their Complaint, alleging three claims. Id. 8, 10, 12-18, 62-76.
Delta now seeks to dismiss these claims and its Motion fails, because Plaintiffs have
more than adequate legal support and factual allegations to sustain the Complaint.
ARGUMENT
I.
PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE CLAIMS THAT DELTAS EMBARGO

VIOLATES COMMON-LAW AND STATUTORY DUTIES OF EQUAL
TREATMENT AND DELTAS MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED.
Delta is a common carrier. As such, it cannot refuse to transport Big Five trophies
(which it carried up until August 3, 2015) simply because. Common carriers, by definition,
hold themselves out to carry for the public and thereby assume a duty to carry indiscriminately,
and this duty may be enforced by common-law and federal statutory claims. The Complaint
adequately pleads such claims against Delta as a common carrier that is unreasonably refusing to
transport cargo. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.
A.
The Complaints well-pleaded allegations withstand the Motion and give

Delta more than sufficient notice of Plaintiffs claims for relief.
The Plaintiffs well-pleaded Complaint withstands Deltas Motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In analyzing Deltas Motion, the Court must accept the
allegations in the Complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. E.g.,
Electrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 614 F. Appx 731, 736 (5th Cir. 2015)
(reversing grant of motion to dismiss two counts of plaintiffs well-pleaded claims). To sustain
its burden of pleading, a plaintiff must give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus,
the complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must plead only a plausible and nonspeculative claim. Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555. It does not need detailed factual allegations and
may suggest the elements of a claim, as long as it presents more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If
the court finds a claim is not sufficiently alleged and the plaintiff seeks leave to amend to
improve it, the court should freely give leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
B.
The Complaint properly pleads a common-law claim that Deltas embargo

on Big Five trophies violates a common carriers duty of equal treatment.
Plaintiffs Complaint adequately alleges that Delta is a common carrier under federal law
and the common law.5 By definition a common carrier is engaged in the business of carrying
goods for others as a public employment, hold[s] himself out as ready to engage in the
transportation of goods for persons generally, and undertakes to carry for all persons
indifferently. E.g., United States v. Stephen Bros. Line, 384 F.2d 118, 122-23 (5th Cir. 1967).
The definition defines the common carriers basic duty of nondiscrimination or equal
treatment. Once a common carrier holds itself out to serve the public, it must serve all
indifferently, to the extent of its capacity. E.g., Semon v. Royal Indem. Co., 279 F.2d 737, 739
(5th Cir. 1960). This duty arises because the common carrier fills a public office. E.g., Mich.
Cent. R.R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co., 83 U.S. 318, 326, 329 (1872); Gulf, Colo. & Santa
Fe Ry. Co. v. Hamilton, 57 S.W.2d 309, 312 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1933) (affirming railroads
Compl. 46-47, 63 (citing FAA Adv. Circ. 120-12A); see also 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(2), (23), (25) (Westlaw
through 2015); 8A Am. Jur. 2d Aviation 59 (operators catering to the public generally ... have been held to be
common carriers by air and charged with liability as such).
liability for refusing to transport plaintiffs cattle). Thus, the basic responsibility of a common
carrier is to make no distinction in providing transportation for those who apply for it; it may
not accommodate one and arbitrarily refuse another. 13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers 227 (citations
omitted). But this responsibility arises [w]ithin the limits of its accommodations. Id. A
common carrier is permitted to define its own market every carrier need not carry everything.
Accordingly, a carrier may define itself as a common carrier of musicians by air,6 or
commodities by boat,7 or only non-hazardous materials by air,8 or only non-liquids by rail,9 or all
kinds of parcels except Class C explosives by intermodal transport (e.g., air and other means).10
The cases cited by Delta (Br. at 6-8) do no more than confirm this common-law rule.11
Delta then omits the next sentence in the sources it cites, which establishes the
concomitant duty of a common carry of equal treatment. Once a carrier defines its market, it
Woolsey v. NTSB, 993 F.2d 516, 525 (5th Cir. 1993) (airline was common carrier because it held itself out to serve
all members of the music industry: What is crucial is that the common carrier defines itself through its own
marketing efforts as being willing to carry any member of that segment of the public which it serves.) (Br. at 5).
7
Ocean S.S. Co. of Savannah v. Savannah Locomotive Works & Supply Co., 63 S.E. 577, 577-79 (Ga. 1909) (cited
in 13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers 289, which is cited in Br. at 6).
8
St. Louis & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma, 184 P. 442 (Okla. 1919). (cited in 13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers 289, which
is cited in Br. at 6).
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 543 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (Br. at 7).
10
B.J. Alan Co. v. ICC, 897 F.2d 561, 565 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Br. at 6).
11
Accord Adkins v. Slater, 298 S.E.2d 236 (W.Va. 1982) (Br. at 7) (At common law a man ... was a common carrier
of such kinds of property as he publicly undertook as a business to convey for all persons indifferently for hire ... a
taxicab owner who transports passengers and baggage for the public generally, is a common carrier with respect to
the safety of baggage transported ... as is an express company with respect to property intrusted to it for shipment...)
(citations omitted). The court held the issue of whether defendant was a common carrier to be a question of fact.
Delta cites two more distinguishable cases (Br. at 7-8). In Kansas State Bank & Trust v. Emery, the shipper sued to
recover for treasury receipts stolen in transit. The court upheld defendant air freight companys policy on
Shipments Not Available, which included negotiable securities. 656 F. Supp. 200, 205 (D. Kan. 1987). But the
court never discussed the common carriers duty; it is not even clear in the opinion if defendant was a common
carrier. And in Treiber & Straub, Inc. v. UPS, Inc., the court upheld defendants exclusion for goods of great value.
474 F.3d 379, 386 (7th Cir. 2007). That holding is consistent with the common-law rule that a common carrier is
bound to convey the goods of any person offering to pay his hire unless ... the risk sought to be imposed upon him [is]
extraordinary. Ocean S.S., 63 S.E. at 578. A common carrier is not forced to take on extraordinary risk, but Delta
never argues Big Five trophies present anything of the kind. They dont they are not extraordinary items but
carried like normal cargo, in normal crates the sort of cargo Delta holds itself out to carry.
may not show favoritism among shippers or shipments based on the type of cargo (Sierra Club
v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 1:13-CV-272, 2014 WL 53309, *1 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 2, 2014)), identity of
the shipper (ICC v. Del., Lackawanna, & W. R.R. Co., 220 U.S. 235, 252-53 (1911)), or other
circumstances irrelevant to the carrier service rendered.12 13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers 277. If an
air carrier holds itself out to carry people in general, it may not turn them away.13
For example, the Supreme Court held a railroad could be compelled to transport flour
from the plaintiffs mill as it was doing for other industries, even though the railroad had a
dispute with the plaintiff and had stopped carrying the plaintiffs flour. Because the railroad was
a common carrier, it was obligated to provide equal service to all. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v.
Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U.S. 612, 619-20 (1909). In the same vein, the Court upheld an
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) rule that forced railroads to carry trailers for their
competitor motor carriers at the going public rate. Am. Trucking Assns, Inc. v. Atchison, 387
U.S. 397, 400-01 (1967). The Court overturned a three-judge district court ruling which had
overturned the ICC rule. Id. at 413. The Court stated that a common carriers duty of equal
treatment at common law (later codified) is ancient and comprehensive, and exceptions are
12
In Sierra Club, the court noted that a railway cannot refuse to transport items including the coal to which plaintiffs
objected. 2014 WL 53309 at *1; see also Chlorine Inst., Inc. v. SOO Line R.R., 792 F.3d 903, 910 (8th Cir. 2015);
U.S. Energy Research & Dev. Admin. v. Akron, Canton, & Youngstown R.R. Co., 359 I.C.C. 639 (1978), affd, 611
F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1979); see also Riffin v. STB, 733 F.3d 340, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Delta cites a half-sentence
from Riffin (Br. at 7). The full quote confirms the common-law duties of common carriers were broad and, even at
common law, railroad companies, whose property and facilities are affected with a public interest, [were] ordinarily
held to be common carriers of goods delivered to them for transportation. 733 F.3d at 345-56 (citing Akron,
Canton, & Youngstwon R.R. Co. v. ICC, 611 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1979) & 12 C.J.S. Carriers 6). Riffin upheld the
ICCs denial of an application to run a railroad because the applicant tried to carve out hazardous materials from its
scope of services, which did not satisfy the common carriers obligation. Id. at 347-48.
13
An air carrier that holds itself out to carry all must carry all, unless otherwise authorized by federal aviation law.
In Pittman v. Grayson, for example, the court reversed a finding against IcelandAir for its part in letting a divorced
mother abscond with two children, as the airline d[id] not, however, have an unfettered right to decide who should
or should not travel, because an airline [is] a common carrier and, as a general rule, a common carrier of
passengers is bound to receive for carriage, without discrimination all proper persons who desire and properly offer
to become passengers. No. 93-CV-3974, 1997 WL 370331, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1997).
not to be implied. Id. at 407. Nothing in statute or common law allowed railroads to choose
what they shipped based on nothing more than the shippers identity even if the shipper was a
competitor. Therefore, the ICC rule was upheld. Id.
Similarly, a steamship was forced to carry lumber because it held itself out to carry all
commodities, even though it preferred to carry cotton. In Ocean Steamship, plaintiff challenged
defendants policy of booking cotton for passage on its ship, but not allowing shippers of
lumber to book their transport, which effectively meant that cotton had priority in the sailing.
63 S.E. at 579-80. Defendant claimed it could prefer cotton to lumber as long as it treated all
shippers of cotton alike and all shippers of lumber alike. Id. Defendant offered many reasons
why it preferred to carry cotton, including that cotton was the staple crop of Georgia, thus
suggesting that defendant was doing its duty by preferencing this commodity. Id. at 580. But
because the ship held itself out as a common carrier of freight, the court held it could not
preference cotton to lumber and must accept the lumber if tendered first. Id.
Deltas assertion and the cases it cites providing that a common carrier may carve out its
market does not actually matter here, as Delta has not carved out any particular market. It holds
itself out as a common carrier that offers 15,000 flights per day to 334 destinations in 64
countries to anyone who pays the fare and books by phone, ticket counter, or website. Compl.
47. And its cargo website suggests an unlimited scope of service: No matter what youre
shipping or where youre shipping it to we have a variety of services that can help ensure
proper handling and a safe delivery. Delta Air Cargo Website, https://www.deltacargo.com/
ProductsRates/General/Dimension.aspx.14 As in Ocean Steamship, since Delta holds itself out to
14
A federal court may refer to a matter[] of public record in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as long as it does
not rely on those matters when deciding the motion. Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 372 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). And a
federal court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact if it is not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is ...
(2) capable of accurate and read determination by resort to resources whose accuracy cannot be questioned. Fed.
carry nearly everything, Delta cannot preference cargo it prefers to carry, even if less
controversial, to the detriment of lawful hunting trophies. It carries all other trophies from
Africa, Europe, and within the U.S.
Furthermore, Deltas conduct to-date undermines its claims that it has carved hunting
trophies out of its market. Delta has not stopped carrying hunting trophies. It has continued to
carry trophies, including plains game from Africa. It carries trophies from other places. It
carries all hunting trophies but the Big Five.15 Delta asserts that it is employing an evenhanded,
non-discriminatory policy under which the carrier refuses to accept a certain type of cargo from
any would-be shipper This is not a case where Delta is carrying trophy kills for some shippers
but not for Plaintiffs. Br. at 8. That is simply untrue. Plaintiffs arent asking Delta do to
something it hasnt already been doing. Plaintiffs are simply asking that Delta treat Big Five
trophies the way it treats other hunting trophies and other commodities. They are simply asking
that Delta comply with its common-law duty of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
A common carriers duty to transport indiscriminately can be enforced through
mandamus or other remedy. Mo. Pac. R.R., 211 U.S. at 619-20. A shipper whose cargo is
refused by a common carrier can also seek damages. 13 Am. Jur. 2d Carriers 297. The claim
is simple: common carriers have a duty to carry all goods offered for transportation. Refusal to
carry the goods of some shippers [i]s unlawful. Am. Trucking Assns, 387 U.S. at 406; 5A Am.
Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Carriers 146 (form for Petition for writ of mandamus/refusal to receive
and transport freight). Deltas Brief cites the Supreme Courts opinion in York, which neatly
R. Evid. 201(a) & (b). The Court should be able to take judicial notice of Deltas own website, as referenced in the
Complaint. Gemstar Group USA, Inc. v. Ferragamo USA, Inc., No. 08-CV-1822, 2008 WL 4858363, *7 (S.D. Tex.
Nov. 10, 2008) (taking judicial notice of defendants multinational website that provides information about
Defendants company, products, museum, employment, and news).
15
Delta certainly cannot save its claims by just refusing to carry all trophies. Hunting trophies do not fall under the
allowed exclusion of extraordinary, high-liability items or dangerous goods.
10
sums up the common carriers right to define its market, its obligation once it does, and the
shippers right to bring an action:
The law prescribes the duties and responsibilities of the common carrier. He
exercises, in one sense, a public employment, and has duties to the public to
perform. Though he may limit his services to the carriage of particular kinds of
goods, and may prescribe regulations to protect himself against imposition and
fraud, and fix a rate of charges proportionate to the magnitude of the risks he may
have to encounter, he can make no discrimination between persons, or vary his
charges from their condition or character. He is bound to accept all goods offered
within the course of his employment, and is liable to an action in case of refusal.
York Co. v. Cent. R.R., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 107, 112 (1865).
Here, the Complaint adequately pleads that Delta is a common carrier (see, e.g., 4647), holds itself out to everyone and not as limited to particular goods (see, e.g., 19, 34, 45,
47, 49, 64), and violates its duty of equal treatment by refusing to ship one type of trophy (see,
e.g., 8, 10, 11, 41, 48, 51, 52), by one type of shipper (e.g., the Big Five) (see, e.g., 16, 17,
49, 53, 57). The Complaint alleges Delta refuses to ship goods it otherwise offers to ship, and is
liable therefor. These allegations satisfy the pleading requirement for a common-law violation of
a common-carriers duty. Nothing in Deltas Brief can help it escape its ultimate liability as a
recognized, common-law common carrier, and its Motion should be denied.
C.
The Complaint properly pleads that Deltas embargo on Big Five trophies
violates the statute codifying the common carriers duty of equal treatment.
Deltas embargo on only Big Five trophies also violates its statutory duty of nondiscrimination. Section 41310(a) of the federal aviation law provides: An air carrier or foreign
air carrier may not subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic in foreign air transportation to
unreasonable discrimination. 49 U.S.C.A. 41310(a) (Westlaw through 2015). This provision
was adapted from 404(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. 41 A.L.R. Fed. 532 (Westlaw
through 2015). This provision provide[s] in general terms, that airline traffic, both passenger
11
and cargo traffic, is to be treated equally by the air carriers to protect the traveling public
[and] effectuate the rule of equality in the air transportation industry. Transcontl Bus. Sys.,
Inc. v. C.A.B., 383 F.2d 466, 474-75 (5th Cir. 1967).16 This section is intended to protect the
right of access to air facilities from discriminatory interference by the air carrier. Polansky v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 523 F.2d 332, 336 (3d Cir. 1975) (no private right under
circumstances of that case because plaintiffs suffered only inferior accommodation, not
discriminatory denial of access to air facilities).
Federal courts have consistently recognized a private right of action to enforce violations
of this anti-discrimination provision. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged a private of right of action
under 404(b) at least three times. First, in Smith v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc. & Delta Air Lines,
Inc., the Fifth Circuit affirmed a damages award for a violation of 404(b), the predecessor of
41310(a). 567 F.2d 290, 291 (5th Cir. 1978). The plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to
follow their boarding priority rules and unreasonably preferenced other passengers to his
detriment, and the district court and Fifth Circuit found this preference offended the principle of
equal treatment. Id. In Diefenthal v. C.A.B., the court confirmed its recognition of a private right
of action under the anti-discrimination provision. 681 F.2d 1039, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1982). The
court found this provision prohibits denial of access to air facilities, but held that passengers
who were allowed to board their flight and only prohibited from smoking on the plane did not
state a claim for denial of access. Id. at 1051. And in Shinault v. American Airlines, Inc., the
court recognized a private right of action under a different provision of the federal aviation law
16
In Transcontinental, the Fifth Circuit found the C.A.B.s rationale did not support its ruling and the Board had
impermissibly used the status of the traffic i.e., customers sages as the basis for a differential fare for youth
12-22, in an unfairly preferential manner that violated federal law. 383 F.2d at 490-91.
12
(prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability), while again acknowledging the existence
of a private right under the predecessor to 41310(a). 936 F.2d 796, 800-02 (5th Cir. 1991).17
Numerous other courts18 and commentators19 also found a private right of action under
404(b), and more recent opinions have extended this holding to 41310(a). See DeGirolamo v.
Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A., 159 F. Supp. 2d 764, 767 (D.N.J. 2001). Case law
addressing a private right under 41310(a) is limited, but the fact the Fifth Circuit has implied
private causes of action in the federal aviation law on numerous prior occasions suggests it
would recognize a private right under the successor to 404(b).
A claim for unreasonable discrimination stands when it is alleged and proven that the
plaintiffs right to fair, equal and nondiscriminatory treatment has been violated. Mahaney v.
Air France, 474 F. Supp. 532, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (finding plaintiff stated claim under 404(b)
for discriminatory treatment). Once the plaintiff proves discrimination or preference, the burden
shifts to the defendant airline to prove (if it can) how the discrimination was reasonable.
Archibald, 460 F.2d at 17. Here, the Complaint alleges Plaintiffs have a right to equal treatment
17
The Fifth Circuit vacated a grant of sanctions and held a district courts ruling that no private right of action
existed under the disability provision was directly contrary to Fifth Circuit precedent. Bynum v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
166 F. Appx 730, 733 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Bynum indicates the Fifth Circuits continued fidelity to private
rights of action for non-discrimination under the federal aviation law.
18
E.g., Fitzgerald v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1956) (finding private right to recover for
racial discrimination); Archibald v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 460 F.2d 14, 16-17 (9th Cir. 1972) (reversing
district court ruling, holding passengers stated claim for unjust discrimination under 404(b)); Karp v. N. Cent. Air
Lines, Inc., 583 F.2d 364, 366 (7th Cir. 1978) (affirming award of damages for violation of anti-discrimination
provision); Roman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 441 F. Supp. 1160, 1165 (N.D. Ill. 1977) (stating [i]t is well-settled that
a private damage action is available to remedy violations of 404(b)); Mortimer v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 302 F.
Supp. 276 (N.D. Ill. 1969) (finding private right existed due to public interest in ensuring non-discriminatory
treatment by air carriers); 2A C.J.S. Aeronautics and Aerospace 226 (An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not
subject a person, place, port, or type of traffic in foreign air transportation to unreasonable discrimination This
statute creates a private cause of action for passengers who suffer unjust discrimination or unreasonable prejudice.).
19
See 41 A.L.R. Fed. 532 (The federal courts are in agreement that while the Federal Aviation Act does not provide
a private remedy for violation by an air carrier of the discrimination provisions contained in 404(b) of the Act, a
private civil action may in an appropriate case be implied. Where the injury caused by the carriers conduct appears to
fall within the scope of the Acts purpose to provide adequate air transportation without unreasonable preferences or
unjust discrimination, the courts hold the case appropriate for a private remedy. The discrimination provision
is for the benefit of persons, including passengers, using the facilities of air carriers...) (internal citations omitted).
13
(see, e.g., 46-48); Delta shipped Big Five trophies from Africa up until August 3 and even
refused to bow to a prior petition to stop shipping trophies (see, e.g., 34); and Delta has stopped
shipping such trophies (see, e.g., 6, 11, 41, 52), even though it continues to ship other trophies
(see, e.g., 6, 41, 52, 54). The Complaint also alleges the unreasonableness of Deltas decision
to embargo Big Five trophies, alleging that the decision which was based on nothing more than a
knee-jerk reaction to Cecil-mania (see, e.g., 41, 44, 56).20 Those allegations satisfy the
elements of the claim, and set forth plausible facts to show a violation of 41310(a). Deltas
embargo is aimed at a particular person, place, and type of traffic, and it is unreasonable and
based on nothing more than overreaction to Internet outrage.
Deltas Brief goes into an extensive analysis of the private right of action under 41310(a)
and seems to ask the Court to overrule the Fifth Circuit. Obviously, a district court does not have
this authority. Jimenez v. Wood Cnty., 660 F.3d 841, 849 (5th Cir. 2011) (Smith, J., dissenting)
(a district court does not have authority to overrule our [Fifth Circuit] precedents). Delta
distinguishes the Fifth Circuits opinion in Diefenthal by citing to district court cases from other
jurisdictions, but all are unpersuasive. None of them actually analyze whether 41310 affords a
private right of action. In Arif Naqvi for instance, the court mainly discussed preemption under
the Montreal Convention and only referenced 41310 in a footnote where it relied on all but one
case construing a separate section of the federal aviation law ( 40127). Arif Naqvi v. Turkish
Airlines, Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d 234, 239 n.7 (D.D.C. 2015). The only 41310 case cited by the
court was Gibbs, which did not analyze a private right under 41310 because the plaintiff
20
Delta does not argue its embargo is reasonable. It couldnt. The embargo violates the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which authorizes import and export of the Big
Five (and other wildlife) after a non-detriment finding is made. Compl. 24-29. The CITES Parties specifically
authorized import and export of hunting trophies of leopard, elephant, and rhino. See id. 26. The embargo is also
contrary to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, which only allows import of Big Five trophies (except for Cape
buffalo, which are not listed under U.S. law or CITES) after making an enhancement of survival finding. The
embargo blocks that enhancement and thus threatens survival of the Big Five.
14
conceded that claim among others. Gibbs v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 144, 146
(D.D.C. 2002)). In Elnajjar, plaintiffs did not defend any statutory claims against a motion to
dismiss. Elnajjar v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., No. 4:04-CV-680, 2005 WL 1949545, *6 (S.D. Tex.
Aug. 15, 2005). And in Williams, the court refused to allow defendants to remove plaintiffs
state claims pursuant to 41310. The court wrote that 41310 provides no cause of action,
but cited nothing and did not engage in a private-right analysis. Williams v. Midwest Express
Airlines, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 975, 979 (E.D. Wis. 2004). None of these cases distinguishes
41310(a)s prior history under 404(b) or the Fifth Circuits controlling decisions.
Delta also argues that the federal aviation law provides private plaintiffs with the right to
initiate an administrative investigation, and this supports the conclusion there is no private right
under 41310(a). Br. at 19-21. But cases construing the predecessor to 41310(a) held the
opposite for the reason that these regulatory remedies only afforded an injured party with
prospective relief and did not allow for compensatory damages for a past wrong, courts inferred
a private right. 41 A.L.R. Fed. 532 (citing Wills v Trans World Airlines, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 360
(S.D. Cal. 1961). Essentially, it was considered in keeping with the purposes of the federal
aviation law to make whole an injured plaintiff who suffered discrimination. Wills, 200 F. Supp.
at 364-65 (Without judicial intervention to redress past violations of the statute, the rights or air
passengers, as declared in the Act, to travel without undue preference or unjust discrimination
would be robbed of vitality and the purposes of the Act substantially thwarted).
Accordingly, both Fifth Circuit law and the policy underlying the finding of a private
right to effectuate the anti-discrimination goals of 41310(a) undercut Deltas argument. This
Court is not being asked to construe some new statutory provision, but rather one which has a
long history of private enforcement. A brand-new private right analysis is unnecessary. This
15
Court should reject the arguments in Deltas Brief and follow the Fifth Circuits lead in Smith,
Diefenthal, and Shinault.21
II.
PLAINTIFFS TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM IS NOT PREEMPTED

AND PROPERLY PLEADS A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
BASED ON DELTAS DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS.
Plaintiffs tortious interference claim does not relate to Deltas services, and thus does not
fall under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978s (ADA) preemption clause. This claim is
sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs may recover damages from Deltas
defamatory conduct, which has harmed their business interests as well as conservation funding
for African range nations, upon which Plaintiffs interests and businesses depend.
Preemption under the ADA is not automatic. Hodges v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 44 F.3d
334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Only state-law claims relating to an air carriers prices,
routes, or services are preempted, and the analysis must be conducted according to the specific
facts of each claim. E.g., id.; Lewis v. Contl Airlines, Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 406, 411 (S.D. Tex.
1999); Bayne v. Adventure Tours USA, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 206, 208 (N.D. Tex. 1994). Claims
having too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a connection to prices, routes, or services are not
preempted. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 390 (1992); Lyn-Lea Travel
Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282, 287 (5th Cir. 2002). This is because the ADA did not
seek to displace all state tort law, but only to prevent states from establishing their economic
regulation of air carriers, contrary to Congress goal of allowing competition to the drive
development of that market. Hodges, 44 F.3d at 335, 337.22
21
The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Bynum (which post-dates the Supreme Courts opinion in Sandoval, cited by Delta at
15-21), that Shinault is still binding law. 166 F. Appx at 733. Delta also cites Casas v. American Airlines, Inc.,
304 F.3d 517, 522 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002) (Br. at 15, 19, 22), but Casas was construing a private right under different
provisions relating to a carriers liability for lost baggage. Baggage claims are typically limited by an air carriers
contract of carriage or other authority, which reinforces why a private right of action is not needed for those claims.
22
Preemption is improper here as well because Plaintiffs tortious interference claim is not an economic regulation.
Deltas defamatory statements and acts do not make Delta a more competitive and efficient airline, and that is what
16
An air carriers services generally represent a bargained-for or anticipated provision

of labor from one party to another.... such items as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of
food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself... Id. at 336.
State-law claims premised on unreasonable conduct that is unnecessary to the provision of a
service are not preempted under the ADA because the conduct too tenuously relates or is
unnecessary to an airlines services. Lewis, 40 F. Supp. 2d at 412 (citations omitted). In
essence, where the facts of a claim do not take place in the course of traveling on a plane but
rather involve an airlines on-the-ground tortious behavior against a plaintiff, courts are less
likely to preempt.23 This is especially true when a claim is based on defamatory conduct. Statelaw prohibitions on defamatory conduct and resulting interference with business relations are not
preempted because they do not represent an economic regulation. These claims do not affect an
airline like Deltas ability to fly its planes, but only limit an airline like Deltas ability to slur the
good names of those with whom they do business. The ADAs preemption provision does not
give air carriers carte blanche to defame and interfere with potential passengers business well
beyond any rate, route, or flight.
For example, the Seventh Circuit held state-law claims including tortious interference
based on an airlines on-the-ground statements criticizing a travel agency were too tenuously
related to the airlines services to be preempted. Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. Kingdom of
the ADAs preemption clause seeks to protect. See Contl Airlines, Inc. v. Kiefer, 920 S.W.2d 274, 278-79 (Tex.
1996) (citations omitted). Tortious interference also falls outside the preemption clause because it comes from the
common law and is not an instance[] of a state imposing [its] own substantive standards with respect to rates
routes, or services, which the ADA preemption provision plainly preempts. Hodges, 44 at 340-41 (Jolly, J.,
concurring); see also Contl Airlines, 920 S.W.2d at 282-83.
23
E.g., Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 2d 244, 249 (D. Mass. 2009) (claim challenging existence or
amount of fee for curbside baggage check-in would be preempted under ADA as related to airlines prices, but
finding plaintiffs claim was not preempted because it only challenged intentionally-misleading fee that deceives
customers into believing they are paying a tip or gratuity to the skycaps [and] the deceptive manner in which the
fee [wa]s charged, and not fee itself).
17
Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1433-34 (7th Cir. 1996). The agency had booked a number of
flights, but the airline canceled those reservations. Id. at 1428. At the same time, it told the
agencys customers the agencys service was poor. Id. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that
statements about the travel agencys services could not relate to the airlines services they did
not relate to the airline at all. Id. at 1433. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district
courts dismissal to the extent the agencys claims were based on the airlines criticisms. Id.
Similarly, a tour operators state-law claim was not preempted to the extent based on a
pilots statements, while on the ground, about the operators financial condition. Wainwrights
Vacations, LLC v. Pan Am. Airways Corp., 130 F. Supp. 2d 712, 714-15 (D. Md. 2001). The
operator contracted with defendant air carrier to provide regular flights to Las Vegas. Id. at 714.
On the first trip, the flight was delayed in part because defendant failed to provide fuel. Id. In an
announcement over the planes loudspeaker, the pilot blamed the delay on the tour operator,
which ultimately resulted in a loss of business. Id. at 715-16. The operators state-law claim
was not preempted, as the pilots statements did not relate to safety or boarding procedures or
any duty of the airline. Id. at 724. Accord Bayne, 841 F. Supp. at 207-09 (slander and other
state-law claims not preempted where accusations were made about plaintiff after he disembarked
a flight, resulting in his detention, as statements related to plaintiff and not airlines services);
Desardouin v. UPS, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 153, 165 (D. Conn. 2003) (denying motion to dismiss
state-law claims as preempted when based on statements made by carriers deliveryman in front
of plaintiffs customers that falsely asserted plaintiff had not paid for goods and questioned if
plaintiff could pay, as statements related to plaintiff and not services provided by defendant).
Here, Plaintiffs tortious interference claim does not challenge Deltas services (or refusal
to provide services). Rather, it challenges the deceptive and defamatory effect of Deltas embargo
18
and its negative impact on Plaintiffs business relations. Plaintiffs essentially challenge the
implication that Big Five hunters act unlawfully, which was broadcast by Deltas very public
embargo and has damaged Plaintiffs business relations past, present, and future. The Complaint
alleges Delta initially refused to be bullied by an Internet petition to cease carrying trophies
and instead issued a statement confirming it accept[ed] hunting trophies in accordance with all
U.S. domestic and international regulations. Compl. 34. Delta at first affirmed lawful,
regulating hunting. But then a U.S. hunter was (unfairly) accused of poaching a lion in Zimbabwe
and Cecil-mania took over. Id. 38-41. Delta very publicly caved to media outrage about the
hunt of Cecil. Id. 40-41, 44-45. In effect, Deltas about-face and public statement that it
would ban Big Five trophies, and that [p]rior to this ban, [its] strict acceptance policy called for
absolute compliance with all government regulations regarding protected species, suggested Big
Five hunting did not comply with those regulations. Deltas acts and statements lumped lawful
Big Five trophies with unlawful contraband Delta will not transport. Delta has become a poster
child for anti-hunters, and its announcement has sparked embargos by airlines and now hotels.24
Deltas reversal, and the stigma it puts on Big Five hunters, is defamatory and recklessly
or willfully misleading. Trophy hunting and transport of Big Five trophies was, and is, legal
under national and international law, and is recognized for its benefits under both national and
international law. Compl. 24-30. Deltas August 3, 2015 statement suggests the contrary. Yet
Delta had already confirmed it knew carriage of trophies was lawful, suggesting a desire to deceive
(at worst), to confuse (at best), and in either event, knowledge the announcement would cut back
24
See, e.g., Chris Green, VICTORY! Delta takes a stand against trophy hunting! Change.org, available at
https://www.change.org/p/delta-air-lines-end-the-transport-of-exotic-animal-hunting-trophies/u/11615784; William
Cummings, Airlines ban hunters big-game trophies after uproar over Cecil the lion, USA Today (Aug. 4, 2015).
A recent petition to prevent a hunting expo in Florida cites Deltas embargo as grounds for the hotel to cancel the
event. CompassionWorks International, Petition, available at https://www.change.org/p/hilton-worldwidedoubletree-by-hilton-orlando-do-not-support-trophy-hunting.
19
business in respect of Big Five trophies. E.g., id. 34, 41. Deltas actions and statements have
deterred U.S. hunters from engaging in commerce and business relations that economically
sustain range states, communities, safari operators and related service industries, habitat, and
wildlife. Id. 9, 53. Tortious interference in Texas requires: a likelihood of a business relation
which is knowingly obstructed by defendants independently tortious or wrongful conduct, and
damages. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711, 726 (Tex. 2011); Amazon
Tours, Inc. v. Quest Global Angling Adventures, LLC, No. 3:03-CV-2551, 2004 WL 1788078, *4
(N.D. Tex. June 30, 2004) (Lynn, J.). Taking their allegations as true as required under Rule
12(b)(6), Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded these elements and stated a claim for tortious
interference unrelated to any of Deltas services. Compl. 2, 6, 9, 31-32, 34, 41, 53-57, 68-72.
Deltas reliance on Lyn-Lea is misplaced.25 Lyn-Lea does not categorically preempt all
business torts. Rather, it involved a specific fact pattern central to the airline industry: a dispute
between a travel agent and a carrier over the computer system the agent used to book tickets on
the carrier. 283 F.3d at 285. This dispute was clearly related to the airlines prices and services
because the parties very relationship was based on selling and providing flights. See id. While
the court never addressed the merits of plaintiffs tortious interference claim, the overlap in the
agents and the airlines customers (i.e., the agent booked passengers for travel on the airline)
suggests a direct relationship to prices and services. Here, on the other hand, Plaintiffs business
relations are broader than Deltas customers, and the damages is not the failure to carry but
rather the impact of the public announcement of the trophy embargo on Plaintiffs businesses.
Compl. 6, 9, 34, 41, 53, 56, 65. Lyn-Lea Travel does not speak to or control these facts.
25
Delta asserts [f]ederal courts routinely dismiss tortious-interference claims on preemption grounds.... Br. at 10.
But these claims were not preempted because they pleaded tortious interference. The key is they related to prices,
routes, and services. The title of the tort has nothing to do with preemption. As explained above, Plaintiffs tortious
interference claim does not relate to Deltas services.
20
Similarly, Plaintiffs claims do not undermine the intent of the ADAs preemption clause.
Plaintiffs do not seek to use Texas tort law to economically regulate Delta. They do not seek an
injunction against Delta based on Texas law. (The requested injunction should be issued under
the common law.) Plaintiffs use Texas law only to recover the damage suffered from Deltas
embargo as a result of being publicly lumped with traffickers and poachers. E.g., Compl. 6,
53. As explained above, Delta is not free to reject cargo it has the capacity to carry, or to
unjustly discriminate against specific persons, places, and types of traffic. Similarly, under
Texas law, Delta is not free to publicly treat lawful tourist hunters like traffickers and poachers,
and slight the conservation funding system of countries like Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
Finally, Delta repeatedly suggests Plaintiffs are trying to force Delta to do something it
doesnt do and transport hunting trophies. E.g., Br. at 8, 12. But Plaintiffs dont have to force
Delta to provide cargo service for trophies. It does now. Deltas recent embargo on hunting
trophies only applies to the Big Five. Since August 3, 2015, Delta has continued to carry hunting
trophies except for the Big Five, including plains game and those from places outside Africa.
Delta carried Big Five trophies until August 3, so Plaintiffs are not forcing anything unusual or
outside Deltas capacity. Deltas refusal to carry Big Five trophies now, post-Cecil, insults
Plaintiffs vital interests. Plaintiffs can bring a state-law claim against Delta to recover for that
insult, which damages their business interests and international conservation programs.
Finally, Plaintiffs tortious interference claim is not preempted because application of the
ADAs preemption clause here is unconstitutional. If applied as Delta demands, the preemption
clause deprives Plaintiffs of their rights to a tort cause of action without providing a reasonable,
substantial alternative remedy. Delta points out that the federal aviation law allows an
administrative investigation and hearing and regulatory fines and orders by the Department of
21
Transportation and FAA. Br. at 19-20. These administrative remedies do not make Plaintiffs
whole for the losses they suffered and continue to suffer from Deltas unlawful embargo. To
apply the ADAs preemption provision would be an unlawful taking of Plaintiffs tort claim and
would violate Due Process. U.S. Const. amend. V. It would unconscionably deprive Plaintiffs
of any private recovery, without providing a reasonably just and substantial and efficient
substitute. See, e.g., N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 201 (1917) (upholding workers
compensation statute as it substituted system of recovery for claims); Hardware Dealers Mut.
Fire Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Glidden Co., 284 U.S. 151, 159-60 (1931) (upholding arbitration on
single issue of loss under fire insurance policy as substantial and efficient); see also Hodges,
344 F.3d at 337-38 (Congress did not indicate intent to displace all state tort law, especially in
light of its failure to provide any federal remedy for persons injured by tortious or illegal
conduct).26 As the Fifth Circuit noted, it is difficult to believe that Congress would, without
comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct. Hodges,
44 F.3d at 337-38. Congress could not, as any such removal would be unconstitutional.
III.
THE COMPLAINT PLEADS A PROPER CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR DELTAS

FAILURE TO OPERATE WITH A VALID CERTIFICATE.
Plaintiffs allege Delta has violated the conditions of its air carrier certificate by adopting
a policy that disregards national and international law, and that Deltas certificate is invalid
26
See also Lebohm v. City of Galveston, 275 S.W.2d 951, 955 (Tex. 1955) (legislative action withdrawing commonlaw remedies for well established common-law causes of action for injuries to ones lands, goods, person or
reputation is sustained only when it is reasonable in substituting other remedies...); PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v.
Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 93-94 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring) (Quite serious constitutional questions might be raised
if a legislature attempted to abolish certain categories of common-law rights in some general way. Indeed, our cases
demonstrate that there are limits on governmental authority to abolish core common-law rights ... at least without ...
a provision for a reasonable alternative remedy.); Baptist Hosp. of Se. Tex., Inc. v. Baber, 672 S.W.2d 296, 298
(Tex. Ct. App. 1984) (collecting cases); Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 2009) (Berzon, J.,
dissenting) (statute did not leave open substitute remedies but impermissibly abrogated common-law rights); cf. id.
at 1144 (distinguishing White and upholding statute where Congress left in place a number of substitute
remedies); Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ., 607 So. 2d 517, 521 (La. 1992) (upholding Louisianas
medical malpractice cap as providing a quid pro quo of a reasonable alternative).
22
because of these violations. Compl. 11, 74-76. Delta relies on a non-binding case27 for the
proposition that Plaintiffs action cannot seek to enforce the terms of Deltas operating
certificate. Br. at 14 (citing Peninsula Airport Commn v. Natl Airlines, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 850
(E.D. Va. 1977)). But Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to enforce the certificates terms. Plaintiffs
allege that Deltas breaches of common, national, and international law and tortious conduct
invalidate its certificate, and it is now operating in violation of 41101 and 44711.
Delta has unclean hands. It alleges it is not acting discriminatorily and tries to mislead
the Court that it is applying an evenhanded ban on carriage of trophies. But it isnt. Deltas
ban only applied to the Big Five, and it continues to carry other trophies. For this reason, Delta
knows or should know it is violating common law and 41310, and thereby invalidating the
terms of its certificate. Deltas wish to be shielded by provisions of aviation law and regulations
it has breached is like asking to enforce, one-sidedly, a contract it has breached, and Delta should
be estopped from so doing.28
Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim is properly brought under 49 U.S.C.A. 46108 (Westlaw
through 2015). But alternatively, if there was ever a case in which a private right of action was
appropriate to imply under 44711(a), this is it. Spinner (cited in Br. at 23) involved a run-ofthe-mill personal injury claim brought against a pilot for not having a valid certificate. Spinner
v. Verbridge, 125 F. Supp. 2d 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). Here, we have a major air carrier ignoring its
common-law duty and embargoing an important resource. The Ministers of (at least) two
African range nations have spoken out against Deltas embargo. Compl. 43. So have agencies
27
The Peninsula plaintiff argued defendant air carrier violated the schedule established in its certificate. However,
Plaintiffs allege Delta invalidated its certificate by engaging in unlawful acts not specific to its schedules or routes.
28
See, e.g., Stimpson v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 S.W.2d 944, 946 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987) (estoppel is designed
to protect the innocent, a party may not urge an estoppel in his favor to shield him from his own tortious acts); MJR
Corp. v. B & B Vending Co., 760 S.W.2d 4, 20 (Tex. App. 1988) (party who has breached contract may not then try
to enforce/benefit from it); Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc. v. Dworkin, 919 F.2d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 1990).
23
like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (see attached letter). The federal aviation law
seeks to effectuate policies such as preventing unfair, deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive
practices in air transportation, strengthening the competitive position of [national] air carriers
with foreign air carriers, and providing [cargo] services without unreasonable
discrimination. 40101. Holding Delta accountable for violating the terms of its certificate
(which requires compliance with law and regulations) will effectuate these policy goals.
Allowing Delta to operate with an unlawful embargo in place, and to continue to violate the law,
does nothing to move the goals of the aviation law forward. In short, Plaintiffs claim differs
from the claim Delta seeks to dismiss. It is a specific, proper claim under 41608, and is
adequately pleaded to survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
CONCLUSION
This case boils down to three simple points. First, Delta is a common carrier holding
itself out to carry pretty much everything. It carries hunting trophies and has only stopped
carrying Big Five trophies since its well-timed public announcement during Cecil mania,
which made Delta something of an anti-hunter/animal rights superstar. But as a common carrier,
Delta cannot cater to Facebook activism. Its embargo bans carriage of a specific type of cargo
by a specific class of people from a specific place, with no principled basis, and is unacceptable
given its common-law and the statutory duties not to discriminate. Plaintiffs have properly
pleaded a claim that Delta has violated these obligations which survives a 12(b)(6) Motion.
Second, Deltas public announcements and continued enforcement of its unlawful
embargo is tortious conduct, aimed at reducing Big Five trophy shipments. As Delta knew it
would, the embargo has stopped Plaintiffs from engaging in business relations. Deltas tortious
conduct essentially lumping lawful, regulated, internationally sanctioned hunters with
24
traffickers and poachers is defamatory. And it is actionable under Texas law because it does
not relate to Deltas services. Thus, the Motion as to Count II should be denied.
Finally, to operate as an air carrier, Delta must have a valid certificate. But its unlawful
conduct violates the terms of its certificate, rendering the certificate invalid. The limited law in
this area is not controlling, and Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim that Delta is operating
pursuant to an invalid certificate which they can bring under the federal aviation law.
For all these reasons, Plaintiffs claims survive Deltas Motion, and the Motion should be
denied.29
January 11, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John J. Jackson, III
John J. Jackson, III
D.C. Bar 432019
Conservation Force
3240 S I-10 Service Rd W, Suite 200
Metairie, Louisiana 70001
jjj@conservationforce.org
(504) 837-1233 (tel.)
(504) 837-1145 (fax)
James C. Hudson
Texas Bar 10156800
8235 Douglas Avenue, Suite 525
Dallas, Texas 75225
(214) 357-0519 (tel.)
(214) 572-9735 (fax)
chris-hudson@att.net
29
To the extent any claim is dismissed, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Courts leave to re-plead, as permitted by
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 11, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Response was filed and served via the Courts CM/ECF system upon all counsel of record.
/s/ John J. Jackson, III

John. J. Jackson, III
Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13-1 Filed 01/11/16
EXHIBIT 1
Plaintiffs Demand Letter to Delta (with attachments)
CONSERVATION FORCE
BARON BERTRAND DES CLERS, PH.D.
JAMES G. TEER, PH.D.
BART OGARA, PH.D.
DON LINDSAY
September 23, 2015

A FORCE FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
JOHN J. JACKSON, III
PHILIPPE CHARDONNET, D.V.M.
GERHARD DAMM
BERT KLINEBURGER
SHANE MAHONEY
DALE TOWEILL, PH.D.
CHRISSIE JACKSON
Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Mr. Richard H. Anderson, CEO
Mr. Edward H. Bastian, President
1030 Delta Blvd., Dept. 982
Atlanta, GA 30320-6001
Registered Agent
Corporation Service Company
2711 Centerville Road
Wilmington, DE 19808
Registered Agent
40 Technology Parkway S, Suite 300
Norcross, GA 30092
Registered Agent
211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620
Austin, TX 78701-321
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
RE: DEMAND LETTER / TROPHY EMBARGO
Dear Sirs:
This is notice of intent to sue due to Deltas embargo of the transport of legally acquired lion, leopard,
elephant, rhino, and buffalo hunting trophies announced on August 3, 2015. We represent
Conservation Force, Dallas and Houston Safari Clubs, Mr. Corey Knowlton, Limpopo Communities and
the CAMPFIRE Association, and others. These potential plaintiffs have all been and continue to be
damaged by Deltas embargo.
The embargo is raising costs and cutting much-needed revenue for wildlife authorities and for some of
the poorest people in Africa. Tourist hunting provides the most habitat and conservation incentives to
protect these embargoed species. Its fees generate the lions share of budget revenue for range nation
wildlife authorities in countries served by Delta or its alliance partners.
For example, in Tanzania, the amount of habitat set aside for hunting is over five times larger than the
area set for national parks. In 2014 tourist hunting fees generated almost $17 million in operating
revenue for the Wildlife Division (as compared to $5 million from photo-tourism). In Zimbabwe, the
hunting areas are 2.9 times the national parks. In Namibia, black rhino hunts alone enabled the
environmental ministry to spend over $2 million on rhino protection and management from 2012 to
mid-2015.
Many communities that depend on revenue from wildlife management are experiencing high
cancellation rates for hunts. Most of these areas are marginal, meaning they do not have the density
of wildlife or necessary infrastructure to support photo-tourism. Losing hunting clients, fees, tips, and
other spending undercuts the incentive to preserve wildlife as assets. If the hunting continues to decline
the communities will move away from wildlife-based land uses and return to grazing or agriculture, to
the detriment of the embargoed species. Enclosed is a 2015 fact sheet from Zimbabwes CAMPFIRE

Demand Letter
Page 2
program which shows the importance of hunting revenue and the relationship between decreased
revenue and increased human-wildlife conflict.
In addition to the damage the embargo is causing on the ground, it must be lifted as it is illegal under
U.S. law, and it undercuts the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES).
First, the embargo is illegal because Delta is a common carrier. As such, Delta cannot discriminate
between passengers and cargo as long as they pay the fare. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a
common carriers refusal to carry the goods of some shippers was unlawful, and we have no doubt a
federal court will apply this precedent to find Deltas unsupported bias against a specific class of hunting
trophies violates this longstanding common law principle.
Further, Deltas embargo on legally acquired trophies denigrates CITES. CITES governs international
trade in at-risk species and explicitly recognizes that trade can benefit a species by giving it economic
value that makes it worth protecting. CITES regulates legal trade which my clients seek to engage in.
But Deltas embargo conflates what is legal with what is illegal. In refusing to carry legally acquired
trophies, Delta is thumbing its nose at an international regime that has governed trade in species for 40
years. It is ignoring the MOU recently signed by the CITES Secretary-General and the Director-General of
the International Air Transport Association, intended to enhance cooperation to better assist
implementation of CITES.
And the embargo alienates good customers and violates Deltas own rules of the road and customer
commitment. Hunter-conservationists like those we represent routinely fly your airline and annually
do significant business with Delta. Hunters frequently fly more than other demographic groups, for
business and recreation; no doubt, we are many of your best customers. Delta commits to handling
customers with respect and integrity. Yet Delta persists in a policy that facially discriminates against
hunters and undermine the conservation strategies of the countries Delta and its partners service.
If you think we can resolve this amicably, please contact undersigned counsel within five days.
Otherwise, suit will be filed without further notice.
Sincerely,
John J. Jackson, III

Conservation Force
Attachments: CAMPFIRE Fact Sheet (770,000 families affected)
Namibian Sun Article
CAMPFIREOverview:June2015
ZimbabwesParksandWildlifeActof1975wasamendedin1982torecognisetherightsofresidentsof
communal lands over wildlife. Appropriate Authority (AA) status is granted to Rural District Councils
(RDCs)thelowestlevelofgovernmentonCommunalLand,sinceruralcommunitiesoccupyingthese
areas are not landowners. This is the basis for the conception and practice of the Community areas
Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). CAMPFIRE Association is a registered
PrivateVoluntaryOrganizationformedin1991toleadCAMPFIREatnationallevel.
Theprogrammeisdesignedtosupportconservationofnaturalresourcesbyprovidingruralpeoplewith
theabilitytomanageandbenefitfromthoseresources.TheCAMPFIREmodel(forwildlifemanagement
purposes)focusesontwomaincriteria:
VoluntaryinterestinparticipationbycommunitiesandtheirRuralDistrictCouncils(RDCs),
Presence ofwildlife populations capable of producing sustainable and economically significant
revenues.
Benefitsharingforlocalcommunitiesbasedon:
Thenumberofanimalsharvestedwithinalocalcommunitysareaeachhuntingseason.
Theextentofwildlifehabitatpresentwithinalocalcommunitysareaannually.
PhaseI19891994:($10mgrantsupportUSAIDandvariouspartners).Theperiodsawtheinitiationof
CAMPFIRE and donor support was channeled towards the improvement of safari hunting in major
districtsthathadbeengrantedAAby1995.TheCAMPFIRECollaborativeGroup(CCG)aconsortiumof
localNGOswasfundedtoprovidemanysupportservicestoCAMPFIRE.
PhaseII19942003:($30mUSAID). Thissupport focusedonthecaptureofothernaturalresources,

liketimber,sand,fishing,etc.ZimbabweSunHotelsalsoinitiatedthedevelopmentofhighendtourism
facilities in Nyaminyami and Chipinge districts in the early 1990s. 12 privately run lodges were in
operationincommunalareasby1999.Smallgrantswerealsoprovidedtosupportthedevelopmentof
ecotourism, crafts,andothercommunitybased naturalresourcesmanagementprojects. Investments
were also made in the production of natural resource products (e.g. fish in Beitbridge, Mwenezi;
mopanewormsinBulilima,MangweandGwanda;honeyinBinga,Kusile,Mutoko,andNyangadistricts)
andmanyotherproducts.
PhaseIII20032007:($165,000FordFoundation).Thisperiodsawthecessationofmajorfundingto
CAMPFIRE,anditalsocoincidedwithlargermacrolevelpolicychangesinZimbabweafter2000,andthe
subsequent adverse socioeconomic conditions. This led to the collapse of financial and technical
supportpreviouslyprovidedbytheCCG.
PhaseIV2007present:($350,000WKKelloggFoundation).Duringthisperiodtherewashyperinflation,
which led to the loss of income from hunting up to early 2009 when multiple currencies were
introduced.CAMPFIREAssociationhascontinuedtooperateusingverylimitedincomefromhunting(4%
levy paid by major hunting districts amounting to about $100,000 annually). The Association has
spearheadedtherevisionofCAMPFIRErevenuesharingguidelinestoimprovethecommunitysshareof
income from 50% to 55% of hunting income. A Direct Payment System has also been developed to
ensurethatcommunitiesreceivetheirincomeontime.Astandardhuntingcontracthasbeendeveloped
toimprovehuntingadministrationbyRDCs.ACAMPFIRETrust,independentofCAMPFIREAssociation,
wasformedandregisteredin2010toleveragefundingintheimplementationofCAMPFIRE.Presently
theprogrammeisceasedwithandproblemanimalcontrolandillegalwildlifetraffickingchallenges,as
wellastheUnitedStatesofAmericassuspensionofivoryimports.
MapofCAMPFIREAreas
MBIRE
MUZARABANI
CHAMINUKA
HURUNGWE
NYAMINYAMI
PFURA
RUSHINGA
MUDZI
BINDURA
UMP
MAZOWE
MUTO KO
G O KWE NORTH
G ORO MO NZI
NYANG A
BING A
G OKWE SO UTH
MARO NDERA
HWANGE
HWEDZA
KUSILE
CHIKO MBA
NKAYI
BUHERA
BUBI
UMGUZA
UMZINGWANE
TSHO LOTSHO
CHIMANIMANI
BULILIMAMANG WE
CHIPING E
MATO BO
CHIREDZI
G WANDA
MWENEZI
KEY
BEITBRIDGE
Protected Area
KM
Major Producer Ward

CAMPFIRE district
0
Table1:ScopeoftheCAMPFIREprogramme
LandareaunderCAMPFIRE
50,000km212%of
Zimbabwe
Averagesizeofwildland
3,300km2
NoofCAMPFIREDistricts
58
Noofwildlifedistricts
28
NoofSafariOperators
33
NoofPhotographicsafaris
10
Noofbeneficiaries
120
wards
or
777,000households
100
200
Table2:CAMPFIREprojects
District
Revenue*
NRActivities
CAMPFIRESponsoredNonHuntingProjects
Beitbridge
Hunting,Fishing,Crafts
MaramaniCraftCentre
ZhoveDamFisheries
Bindura
Tourism
ParadisePoolsDayCentre&CampingSite
Binga
Bubi
Buhera
Tourism,Crafts
MatenderaHillsDayCentre
Bulilima&
Mangwe
Hunting,Tourism,
Mopaneworms
Chimanimani
Tourism,Fishing
AmacimbiHarvesting&Management
WaterCanal&CampingSite
VhimbaLodge,ornithology;
MhakweFisheries
Chipinge
Hunting,Tourism
MahenyeVeldFireManagement
Chiredzi
Hunting
ChiredziVeldFireManagement
Chirumhanzu
Beekeeping
CommunityBeekeeping
GokweNorth
Hunting,Tourism
GandavaroyiFallsCampsite
GokweNorthVeldFireManagement
GokweSouth
Hunting
JahanaZebraWatering
Goromonzi
Tourism,Crafts
NgomakuriraHillsDayCentre
Gwanda
Hunting,Tourism
Hurungwe
Hunting,Tourism
Hwange
Hunting,Tourism,Fishing,
Crafts
CheziyaFishingCamps
Hwedza
Tourism,Beekeeping
WedzaMountainBeekeeping
Kusile
Hunting,Beekeeping
TimberLogging,Crafts
7WardBeekeepingProjects
Makonde
Hunting
3Wildlifebasedlandreformprojects
Marondera
Hunting,Fishing
1Wildlifebasedlandreformproject
Matobo
Hunting,Tourism,Crafts
CJRhodesCulturalVillage,
NtunjambiliCaveDayCentre
Mbire
Hunting,Tourism
Karunga,Masoka,MkangaCamps
Hunting,Fishing,Tourism, MwinjiCulturalVillage,SiamulobaFishingCamp
Crafts
Fencing
Hunting
Doddieburn/ManyoleRanch
ThuliShasheWildlifeManagement
SanyatiLodge
RengweFencing
Mazowe
Tourism,Fishing
BanjeMountainCamping
MwenjeDamFisheries
Mudzi,Rushinga,
UMP
Hunting,Tourism
NyatanaWildernessManagement
Mutasa
Beekeeping
RuunjiBeekeeping
Mutoko
Beekeeping
MutokoBeekeeping
Muzarabani
Hunting,Tourism
MavuradonaWildernessCamp
Mwenezi
Fishing
ManyuchiDamFisheries
Nkayi
Hunting,Crafts
KennilworthWaterProvision
Nyaminyami
Hunting,Tourism
Institutionalcapacitybuilding
Nyanga
Tourism,TroutFishing
Pfura
Tourism,Crafts
GaireziLodgesandCampsites
PfuraMountainsDayCentre
MukurupahariBambooCrafts
Tongogara
Beekeeping
Tsholostho
Umguza
UMPZvataida
Hunting,Tourism,
Beekeeping
Umzingwane
Tourism,Crafts
Hunting,Tourism,Timber
Logging,Crafts
Hunting,Tourism,Timber
Logging
SvikaBeekeeping
Gariyadamcanalrehabilitation
IgusiWaterProject
UmguzaWoodlot
MudaConservancy
UMPBeekeeping,
SunungukaiCamp
EmbizeniLodges,
MtshabeziCulturalVillage,
LumemeFalls,DianasPools
*AnnualRevenue:1=lessthanUS$10,000P/A,2=US$10,00099,000P/A,3=morethanUS$100,000P/A.
Based on Table 2 above, CAMPFIRE focuses on wildlife, tourism (commercial joint ventures; high end
concessions),rafting/riveruse,woodlands,water,fisheries,grazingresources,grasslands,crocodileegg
collection, sand extraction, sale of natural products (amacimbi, mazhanje, masau), and crafts in
Communalareas.Forseveralpracticalandeconomicreasons,incomegenerationismostlythroughthe
leaseofsporthuntingrightstocommercialsafarioperators,aswellassalesofhidesandivory,tourism
leasesoncommunallandandothernaturalresourcesmanagementactivities.
Wildlife utilisation has been the main focus as it produces the most value. Meat production and the
capture and live sales of game are other sources of wildlife revenue, but they have produced little
incometodateforCAMPFIRE.
Table3:PrivateSectorTourismInvestmentsonCommunalLand
District
NameofFacility
Chipinge
Chilo/MahenyeSafariLodges
Binga
MasumuRiverLodge
Hurungwe
SanyatiBridgeCamp
Hwange
GorgesRiverLodge
Muzarabani
VardenSafaris
Nyaminyami
BumiHills
Elephantpoint
GacheGacheLodge
TigerBay
Umzingwane
EmbizeniLodges
Table4:HuntingQuotas,HumanandWildlifeConflict,andPAC(majordistricts)
RDC
Approved
Elephant
Quota
2014
Beitbridge
Binga
Bulilima
Chipinge
Chiredzi
Gokwe N
Hwange
Hurungwe
Matobo
Mbire
Nyaminyami
Tsholotsho
Totals
12
14
10
10
25
5
15
14
4
15
24
24
172
Number of human and

elephant conflict cases
2013
42
40
30
1
20
3
129
4
0
3
106
34
412
2014
144
73
41
4
35
1
152
7
1
2
93
49
602
Number of
PAC
elephant
2014
9
5
10
0
4
3
29
2
1
3
7
18
91
Human and elephant conflict is high, but very little is known about the distribution, abundance, or
dispersal patterns of elephants in CAMPFIRE areas as elephants are migratory. Most of the areas are
drought prone and it is difficult to qualify and measure crop damage trends. Problems are severe in
wardsthatborderNationalParks.Habitualcropraidersusedifferententrances,whichmakesguarding
difficult.
ConflictCauses
Lossofhabitat
Habitatfragmentation
Unplannedhumansettlement
Disturbanceoflivestockgrazing
Problemsforhumans
Croplosses(1018%ofhouseholdincome),earlyharvestsreducecropyieldandquality
Manpowerrequirementsforguarding
Lackofsupportindevelopingprotection/mitigationmeasures
Attacksonhumansinjuriesanddeath
Supported was provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), SCIF, and other partners to
establish a Human and Wildlife Conflict (HWC) Mitigation Centre at CAMPFIRE Association offices in
2012. There are 8 model displays showing actions people living in rural areas can take to protect
themselves and their crops from the potential dangers of wild animals, using enviro/wildlifefriendly
methods. Significance of traditional travel routes of nomadic herds, especially elephant is highlighted.
TherearealsoaHWCToolkit,posters,andbookletsforbothpracticaluseandeducationalpurposes.
Table5:CAMPFIREIncome
District
2009
Beitbridge
73,685.00
77,950.00
99,001.40
169,825.00
189,650.00
118,055.00
73,712.00
24,336.86
112,500.00
117,030.00
73,400.00
42,280.00
77,906.00
72,470.00
61,268.00
18,750.00
51,028.00
101,893.30
81,300.00
81,650.00
63,000.00
65,039.30
53,525.00
92,950.00
27,000.00
192,961.00
161,250.00
257,350.00
323,865.00
223,710.00
65,000.00
39,388.80
108,475.00
34,100.00
46,677.00
73,140.00
89,137.47
164,700.00
132,325.00
158,580.00
8,000.00
17,843.33
22,616.00
11,197.00
15,000.00
431,762.00
309,783.38
584,800.00
407,650.00
519,892.00
444,070.00
367,302.24
476,200.00
440,925.00
273,966.00
262,292.00
229,916.93
492,975.00
418,950.00
299,200.00
1,597,455.00
1,480,905.71
2,515,436.00
2,229,910.00
1,774,230.00
Binga
Bubi
Bulilima
Chipinge
Chiredzi
GokweN
Hwange
Matobo
Mbire
Nyaminyami
Tsholotsho
Total
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4,885.00
20,990.84
80,305.00
269,648.10
42,315.00
52,830.00
1,918.00
317,644.75
414,735.00
202,500.00
1,481,347.85
Sharing of income is based on the Constitution of the CAMPFIRE Association as amended in 2007. All
majorRDCs(12)useCAMPFIRErevenuesharingGuidelines,andinthesedistrictsrevenueispaiddirectly
intocommunitycontrolledbankaccountsbysafarioperators.
Table6:Anexampleofapaymentschedule
BULEMBI SAFARIS
advice to Campfire Association on fees paid #1
TROPHY FEE US$ PAYMENTS 2011

CLIENT
TR 2 NO.
NAME
TROPHY
RDC
FEES
FEES DUE
ASSOCIATION WARD 3
DUES
DUE
41%
4%
55%
WARD 4 WARD 5 WARD 6 WARD 7

DUE
DUE
DUE
TOTAL
DUE
PAYING
David Kuehn
020810
9,250.00 $ 3,792.50 $
370.00 $5,087.50 $
9,250.00
Jeffrey Berlew
020811
$ 13,440.00 $ 5,510.40 $
537.60 $7,392.00 $
13,440.00
Russell Marshall 020813
5,000.00 $ 2,050.00 $
200.00 $2,750.00 $
5,000.00
Robert Wilder
2,100.00 $
84.00 $1,155.00 $
2,100.00
020812
861.00 $
$
TOTAL
12,213.90
1,191.60 16,384.50 $
Table7:Comparisonofbenefitspernumberofbeneficiaries2013
GOKWENORTHDISTRICT
HuntingArea
No.ofWards
No.ofHouseholds
Area1
10
17621
Area2
6
9712
MBIREDISTRICT
HuntingArea
No.ofWards
No.ofHouseholds
DandeNorth
3
2186
DandeSouth
4
2818
DandeEast
11
13151
DandeSafariArea
ParksandWildlife
29,790.00
Totalpaidtohh($)
32,656
3,960
Totalpaidtohh($)
89,713
70,481
44,521
162,120
TheincreaseinhumanpopulationinGokweNorthandotherkeywildlifedistricts,nowaveragingmore
than 16 people per km2 compared to 10 people per km2 when CAMPFIRE started, shows that the
benefitsofwildlifehavebeendiluted.Thehumanpopulationincreaseandresultingsettledagricultureis
spreadingtomoremarginalrangelands,therebyfuellingconflictbetweenwildlifeandpeople.Moreof
wildlifes natural habitat will diminish if hunting is completely stopped. Masoka ward in Mbire district
receivesthelargestbenefitfromtheDandeSouthhuntingconcessionduetothesizeofitshuntingarea.
The ward has less than 400 families. Apart from a primary and secondary school and clinic wholly
constructed using wildlife revenues, the ward has a functional AntiPoaching Unit and office, VSat
internet communication, pays school fees from primary (40 pupils per year) and university level (3
students),alorry,tractor,corngrindingmills,anddroughtreliefeachyear.
Through support from World Wide Fund for Nature and CAMPFIRE Association, the Mbire RDC has
delegatedAppropriateAuthorityforthemanagementofwildlifetotheMasokacommunity.
ThisempowermentprocessinvolvesthedevolutionofpowersthatformerlyrestedwithCounciltothe
community.Theprocessrequiressignificantinvestmentinpartnershiparrangements,capacitybuilding,
communitytrainingandinstitutionalsupport,andisnotyetcomplete.
Table8:NumberofHuntsbyCountryofOrigin(19982001)
CAMPFIREMonitoringandEconomicData(WWF2001)
TheUnitedStatesofAmericabringsthehighestnumberofsporthunterstoZimbabwe.In2001,these
constituted 61% for all land categories. American clients generally constitute 76% of hunters in
CAMPFIREareasforallanimalshuntedeachyear.
Table9:ImpactofUSIvoryimportssuspension2014
RDC
Beitbridge
Binga
Bulilima
Chipinge
Chiredzi
Gokwe N
Hwange
Hurungwe
Matobo
Mbire
Nyaminyami
Approved
Elephant
Quota 2014
11
14
10
10
33
14
16
14
4
15
24
Number not
hunted due
to US ban
9
12
6
9
23
10
3
13
4
2
14
Tsholotsho
24
Total
189*
*Includestusklesselephant
3
108
TheUSsuspensionofivoryimportsfromZimbabwein2014hashadahugeimpactonCAMPFIRE,and
resultedinthefollowing:
Thecancellationof108outof189(57%)elephanthuntsinallmajordistrictsinitiallybookedby
UScitizensresultedinthereductionofCAMPFIREincomefrom$2.2min2013to1.7in2014.
The $45,000 2014 SCI Tag Auction of one bull elephant that has directly supported CAMPFIRE
annuallysince2012wasdisruptedwhenaUSclientboughtthetagattheauctioninFebruary,
butlaterdemandedarefundinApril2014whenthesuspensionwasannounced.
CAMPFIRE communities suffer most from elephant crop damage, and consequently the programme
dependsonconsumptivetrophyhuntinginwhichtheelephantisthemajortrophyspeciesandprimary
revenue stream. The suspension has caused a massive disruption of hunting revenue inflows to
communitiesduetodelaysincancellationandresellingofthehuntstoothernationals.Thesuspension,
extendedinto2015,hasnotonlynegativelyaffectedinvestmentintotheprotectionofwildlife,buthas
also removed direct incentives at community level to protect elephants. Beitbridge district recorded
highhumanelephantconflictcasesfor2014attherateofanaverageof12casesadayresultingin9
elephants being killed on PAC. However, Mbire district recorded a sharp decrease in incidents of
conflicts due to the introduction of night vigils in hot spot areas by ward based game scouts, thereby
scaring away animals before damage. Only Tsholotsho district, which offers best trophy quality, was
successful in reselling all hunts to other clients at good prices. This means disgruntled CAMPFIRE
communities will turn to pastoralism and unviable agriculture, thereby reducing wildlife habitat. The
suspension is effectively encouraging communities to become willing tools for poaching a forced
abandonmentofCAMPFIRE.
Table10:ExamplesofCommunityProjectsfundedfromCAMPFIRERevenue:201014
District
Beitbridge
Bililima
Binga
Chipinge
Chiredzi
GokweNorth
HurungweRDC
Hwange
Matobo
Mbire
Mudzi
Nyaminyami
Project
Rehabilitationofschools,clinicsandirrigationschemes
Rehabilitationof3clinicsand3primaryschools,hall,fencingfieldandrehabilitation
oflodge
Schools,clinicsandsuboffices,rudimentaryelephantdungpapermakingand
tanning
3grindingmills,lorry,teachershouses,communityoffice,shop
Clinic,teachershouses,primaryschool,communitygrindingmill,Policesuboffice,
pipedwaterandelectrificationofclinic.
6grindingmills
Tillagetractors
Agriculturalinputs,goatsrestocking
Organicfarminggardens
Clinic,nurseshouses,office,storerooms,14classrooms,7teachershouses,grinding
mill,schooloffice,wildlifeadministrationoffices,2handpumpboreholes,water
pipes,toilet,waterstoragetanks,2tractors,atouristcampwith4chalets;
ConstructionofChingamukaprimaryandChoripreschool
Tillagetractors,renovationofdispensaryatclinic,nurseshouse.Constructionof
Mayovheclassroomblock,3grindingmills,Teachershouse,Jongolaschool.School
bursariesx3studentsatSekeTeachersCollege.Renovationofpreschoolsx2.
Tsholotsho
Umguza
Vungu
Negande:Rehabilitationofwaterpipeline,grindingmill.Nebiri:Chikuroprimary
block,rehabilitationofHarudzivawaterpipeline.Kasvisva:Rehabilitationofwater
pipelinetosupplywatertoKasvisvaclinic,KasvisvaSecondaryschoolblock.Msampa:
Teachershouse,Majazupry,renovationofwardwarehouse;Kanyati:Cementfor
teachershouserenovation.
Classroomblocksandfurniture(Sihazela,Mlevu,Mtshwayeli,Ntulula,Dibutibu,
Gwaai,Nkwizhi,Zibalongwe,Malindi,Mgodimasili,Phelela,Mpilo,Jimila,andKapane
Primaryschools),2F14cottages,10sewingmachines(DibutibuSecondaryschool),
7kmpipedwatersystemforThembileprimaryschool,SikenteClinic,Tshitatshawa
andJowaclinicsconstruction,fencingofMadlangombeclinic,10waterengines,
boreholedrillingandrepairsandrepairkits,Listerdieselenginesfor6villagesin
ward21andatSihazelaLineinward1,grindingmills,solarwaterpumpinginwards
1,2and4.
Mlandwasecondaryschool
Constructionofprimaryschool,borehole,diptank
SUMMARYOFCAMPFIRECHALLENGES
MonitoringCAMPFIREsfinancialandeconomicimpact,andcrediblereporting.
Improvingmarketingofwildlifeandwildlifeproductsandtrade.
Improvingquotasettingwithfullinvolvementofcommunities.
Improvedadministrationofsafarihunting.
Highlevelofcommunityparticipationindecisionmaking.
Improvingproblemanimalmanagement.
Greaterdiversification,andREDD+initiatives.
AddressingthesechallengeswillhelpCAMPFIREmaintaindedicatedwildlifeareas,andgreaterrespect
giventonaturalresourceconservationinruralareasbycommunitiesfirecontrol,reducedtreecutting,
reduced poaching, and most importantly, improved rural livelihoods. Renewed support for CAMPFIRE
will help in maintaining space for wildlife to ensure economic benefit for rural communities and less
humanandwildlifeconflict,andasaresult,lessretaliatorykillingofwildlife,andpoaching.
10
Page 1 of 3
Banning trophy hunting would harm

conservation
Submitted by NambianSun203 on Wed, 2015-08-05 01:00
While international organisations and activists are calling for a total ban of all
trophy hunting the Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta, said
that would have a devastating impact on the Namibian economy.
Banning trophy hunting will be the end of conservation in Namibia, Shifeta said.
Shifeta yesterday stressed the important role that trophy hunting plays not only for
the economy of Namibia, but also for communities and conservancies.
With the recent shooting of Cecil the Zimbabwean lion by an American dentist,
global outrage against trophy hunting flared up once again.
It has also resulted in American airline Delta Airlines to ban the transport of
hunting trophies.
Delta Airlines, which is said to be the main transporter of hunting trophies from
South Africa to the US, announced that it would no longer transport lion, leopard,
elephant, rhinoceros and buffalo trophies.
In May, the worlds largest airline, Emirates, also banned hunting trophies.
Shifeta yesterday said that would have serious impacts on the hunting industry of
Namibia, as overseas hunters have to make use of South Africa to transport their
hunting trophies back to their home countries.
He expressed the hope that Air Namibia would not follow suit, adding that it is a
public airline and that Namibias law on nature conservation is clear to use its
natural resources sustainably.
The campaign is very serious and it is significantly impacting the Namibian
economy.
Shifeta also referred to the controversial black rhino hunt that was auctioned to
Texas hunter Corey Knowlton, who killed an endangered black rhino in Namibia
earlier this year to raise funds for rhino conservation in the country. The rhino
10/14/2015
Page 2 of 3
hunt was sold for $350 000.

Shifeta said although this money had been paid to Namibia there is currently a
lawsuit pending against the import of the trophy into the US and therefore the
ministry cannot use these funds.
Several animal-rights groups joined in the legal battle to fight the import of the
black rhino hunt into the US and although Knowlton was allowed to take the trophy
back it seems that the battle is still ongoing.
Shifeta said due to this international campaign against trophy hunting Namibia
stands to lose millions which could have been used for conservation efforts.
If people are campaigning against trophy hunting and it is banned it will have a
serious [and] devastating [effect] for the country and communities that protect the
wildlife. This money helps conservancies and conservation work in the country.
If we stop giving people incentives from the money we get through this trophy
hunts they will abandon conservation work, because what benefits are they getting
from protecting the wildlife?
The trophy-hunting industry is estimated to be worth approximately N$500 million
per year.
Trophy hunting in 2013 generated N$20 million just from conservancies in
Namibia. This translated into N$6 million worth of meat from trophy hunting while
another N$4 million worth of meat was derived from wildlife killed by conservancy
members.
WINDHOEK ELLANIE SMIT
Category: CRIME (/taxonomy/term/245)
Share This:
Like
(http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300)
RELATED ARTICLES
(/crime/father-questions-concert-security.86718)
Father questions concert security

(/crime/father-questions-concert-security.86718)
The father of murdered Unam student

Simson Gobs, who was stabbed to
death two weeks ago at a music...
Man bites off female guards lip (/crime/man-bites-female-guards-lip.86726)
Chinese concerned by rising crime (/crime/chinese-concerned-by-rising-crime.86730)
Egameno mOshilando, niihole mooskola (/crime/egameno-moshilando-niiholemooskola.86738)
Khomas police confiscate hundreds of weapons (/crime/khomas-police-confiscatehundreds-weapons.86639)
PARTNER LINKS
(http://az.com.na)
(http://republikein.com.na)
10/14/2015
EXHIBIT 2
AFWA Letter

Dallas Safari Club Response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dallas Safari Club Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16

Page 1 of 34 PageID 166

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16

Page 2 of 34 PageID 167

PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE CLAIMS THAT DELTAS

The Complaints well-pleaded allegations withstand the Motion and

The Complaint properly pleads a common-law claim that Deltas

The Complaint properly pleads that Deltas embargo on Big Five

PLAINTIFFS TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM IS NOT

THE COMPLAINT PLEADS A PROPER CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16

Page 3 of 34 PageID 168

Akron, Canton, & Youngstown R.R. Co. v. ICC,

Amazon Tours, Inc. v. Quest Global Angling Adventures, LLC,

Archibald v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.,

Arif Naqvi v. Turkish Airlines, Inc.,

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

B.J. Alan Co. v. ICC,

Brown v. United Airlines, Inc.,

Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ.,

Bynum v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16

Page 4 of 34 PageID 169

Casas v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

Chlorine Inst., Inc. v. SOO Line R.R.,

Contl Airlines, Inc. v. Kiefer,

DeGirolamo v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A.,

Desardouin v. UPS, Inc.,

Electrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp.,

Elnajjar v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.,

Fitzgerald v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.,

Gemstar Group USA, Inc. v. Ferragamo USA, Inc.,

Gibbs v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hamilton,

Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Glidden Co.,

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16

Hodges v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

Page 5 of 34 PageID 170

ICC v. Del., Lackawanna, & W. R.R. Co.,

Ileto v. Glock, Inc.,

Jimenez v. Wood Cnty.,

Karp v. N. Cent. Air Lines, Inc.,

Lebohm v. City of Galveston,

Lewis v. Contl Airlines, Inc.,

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

Mahaney v. Air France,

Mich. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Mineral Springs Mfg. Co.,

Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co.,

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

Case 3:15-cv-03348-M Document 13 Filed 01/11/16

Page 6 of 34 PageID 171

Mortimer v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc. v. Dworkin,

N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. White,

Polansky v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins,

Roman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

Semon v. Royal Indem. Co.,

Shinault v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

Sierra Club v. BNSF Ry. Co.,